Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHAMPSHIRE POND PUD FINAL SECOND P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 44 93A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES• Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 5 Mr. Eckman asked if the motion specified that there be no sheds on the first three lots. Member Strom clarified, as part of his motion, that there are to be no sheds on the back property line of the three lots adjacent to Dr. Kieft's property, that setbacks would be met whatever their size. Motion passed 7-0. Chair Clements -Cooney stated that she had received phone calls regarding this item and wanted to pull it for discussion. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, gave the staff report with staff recommending approval. Chair Clements -Cooney asked if the request for the HB zone came from the City or the property owner. • Mr. Waido replied that it came from the applicant. Chair Clements -Cooney asked what can be proposed under the HB designation. Mr. Waido stated the HB designation and the HB designation with a PUD condition were two different things. He stated the PUD condition would require any development proposal to be submitted as a PUD and essentially, through the guidance system, any land use could be proposed. He stated the proposal would then be reviewed for overall development criteria, applicable to all applications, and then the point chart depending on land use proposed. He stated, in terms of annexation and zoning, the HB zone with a PUD condition did not predict what type of land use could go on there; the PUD condition would protect the City in that any development proposal would need to go through the guidance system. Chair Clements -Cooney asked if the property to the east of the site was annexed to the city. Mr. Waido replied that it was annexed and zoned B-L, Limited Business, with no PUD condition. He stated a number of retail and office uses were allowed by -right in that zone, in fact, most of those uses east of this site did occur through just the straight zoning. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated that the highway business zone has been typically applied in this area on South College with few exceptions. He stated that the zoning in the • county is C, Commercial, and B, Business, that allowed similar uses -by -right. He stated that Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 4 BLIC INP Dr. Larry Kieft, 2333 W. Drake, stated he had forwarded a letter to the Board which requested that the project be considered as a whole. He stated some adjustments have been made, but felt more creative things could be done with the property to enhance the neighborhood, to provide more buffering for his property. He was concerned with the homes backing to his property line, the location of sheds, and felt these concerns have a significant impact on him. Member Walker questioned the issue of sheds being built next to the fence. He questioned if the height of sheds and distance to the fence may be in conflict with zoning codes. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that if sheds exceed 8 feet in height, they have to meet the setback requirements. If they are 8 feet or less, they can be "zero" lot line. Member Cottier asked Dr. Kieft if the landscape plantings by the developer were satisfactory. Dr. Kieft replied that a new plan had not been submitted but he had talked with the landscape developer and was assured that they would make adjustments for the planting of trees. Member Cottier asked Mr. Storck if he had planned a homeowners association. Mr_ Storck replied that care would be taken of the Iandscape along Drake and other outlots. Member Cottier inquired about the location of the sheds. Mr. Storck said that had been approved in the past and if there needed to be a restriction for Dr. Kieft's cul-de-sac area, he had no problem with that. He did not feel the entire community should be restricted. Member Strom moved to approve Hampshire Pond PUD Final with the staff condition and limiting the sheds on the west boundary of the first three lots. Cottier seconded the motion. Member Strom said that the developer had responded to the concerns that the Board made and that the minor adjustment provided depth. This would allow people to deal effectively with their relationships with lots on their own properties. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 3 P.U.D. plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the second monthly meeting (December 13, 1993) of the Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall first find that there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding or second succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made.) If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that a dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute. Richard Storck, Storck Development, stated they had made adjustments as requested by Dr. Kieft, which he believed showed reasonable response on their part. He stated Dr. Kieft's property was within 500 feet of the neighborhood shopping center. He believed that he has cooperated in a positive way and that, without this plan, "hop -scotch" development would be encouraged versus taking care of infill parcels. He said there was half the density that could 0 optimally be on this property. 0 • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 1993 Page 2 Member Strom moved that Items 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13-18 be approved. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Chair Clements -Cooney asked point of clarification on minutes for September 27 meeting. Mr. Peterson declared that they had been pulled. Motion passed 7-0. POUDRE HIGH SCHOOL EXPANSION - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW #59-93 Chair Clements -Cooney stated that Member Winfree had left the room because of a "conflict of interest. " Member Fontane moved to recommend approval of the Poudre High School Expansion. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. PROVINCETOWNE_PUD, 1ST FILING, PHASES 1 -4 - FINAL #73-82R Member Cottier moved to approve of Provincetowne PUD. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Member Strom indicated he would be voting "no" on this PUD mainly for reasons he explained in last month's discussion regarding density. Motion passed 6-1 with Member Strom in the negative. HAMPSHIRE POND PUD - FINAL #44-93A Steve Olt, Project Planner, gave the staff report with staff recommending approval with the following condition: The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, and final 0 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES October 25, 1993 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The October 25, 1993, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Rene` Clements -Cooney, Jan Cottier, Jennifer Fontane, Jim Klataske, Lloyd Walker, Sharon Winfree and Bernie Strom. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Steve Olt, Joe Frank, Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig, Carolyn Worden and Heidi Phelps. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of August 2, August 23, August 30, (September 27 minutes pulled, incomplete), and October 4, 1993, P & Z Meetings. Item 2 - East Drake Terrace Office Park PUD - Preliminary, #58-93; Item 3 - A Big A Storage PUD - Preliminary, #57-93; Item 4 - Poudre High School Expansion - Site Plan Advisory Review, #59-93; Item 5 - Provincetowne PUD, lst Filing, Phases 1-4 - Final, #73-82R; Item 6 - Fossil Creek Meter Station PUD - Preliminary & Final, #60-93; Item 7 - Greenbriar Village PUD, 2nd Filing - Final, #19-93E, Item 8 - Greenbriar Village PUD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary, #19-93 (postponed until November 15 meeting), Item 9 - Victorian Gables at Silverplume PUD - Replat, #62-89E, Item 10 - Raintree Townhomes PUD - Final, #42-93A (postponed until November 15 meeting); Item 11 - Wildwood Farm PUD, 2nd Filing - Final, #90-85I; Item 12 - Hampshire Pond PUD - Final, #44-93A; Item 13 - PZ93-9 Vacation of Utility and Drainage Easement; Item 14 - PZ93-10 Vacation of Utility and Drainage Easement; Item 15 - PZ93-11 Vacation of Utility Easement, Item 16 - PZ93-13 Vacation of Utility Easement; Item 17 - Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 18 - Amendment to South College Avenue Access Control Plan, #69-93; Item 19 REA Annexation and Zoning, #64-93A. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 20 - PZ93-12 Historic Resources Preservation Program; Item 21 - Planning Fees, #62-92; Item 22 - Summerhill PUD - Final, #41-93A; and Item 23 - The Preserve Apartments PUD - Final, #146-79P. Staff pulled Item 8 - Greenbriar Village PUD, 3rd Filing and Item 10 - Raintree Townhomes PUD - Final. Chair Clements -Cooney requested Item 19 be pulled. Item 12 was pulled by an audience member.